I can't believe that Apple would allow the 17-inch unibody matte screen to be any less "torsionally resistant" than the glossy glass version.

Why not? Glass is a rigid material, and when combined with a curved aluminum shell the construction resembles that of an aircraft wing.

Take out the edge to edge glass surface and replace with a bit of aluminum at the border, and you lose this structural arrangement.

It's hardly the end of the world. The old 17" was quite good compared with typical notebook construction, and is probably less rigid even than the new 17" without the glass. Tolerances are lower now (parts have a tighter fit), and less plastic is used.

So what? That says nothing towards your statement of a 100 year recession. There's no indication of that yet.

Jeff, you are a moderator, right?

try reading it again, till your comprehension kicks in, he didn't say the recession "WAS 100 years long", but that it was "the worst one IN 100 years." there is a difference.

however this omits the stock death hell of '29. of course with that not being within most posters living memory, it just seems like its the worst recession IN 100 years, because modern communication seems to revolve around the hyperbole today.. sigh.

I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

try reading it again, till your comprehension kicks in, he didn't say the recession "WAS 100 years long", but that it was "the worst one IN 100 years." there is a difference.

My comprehension was fine. Maybe you haven't heard of the reference I was using. Haven't you heard of the concept of a 100 year storm? That doesn't signify a storm that last 100 years either, but the worst you'll likely see in 100 years. That's exactly how I meant it. Maybe the usage is a little awkward, but I thought it fit. I think it's used more in meteorology and civil planning - a bridge expected to last X years should be designed to take the worst storm/flood/quake expected to take place within X years (or maybe 2X years, I forget).

Quote:

however this omits the stock death hell of '29. of course with that not being within most posters living memory, it just seems like its the worst recession IN 100 years, because modern communication seems to revolve around the hyperbole today.. sigh.

I don't think it's as bad as the recession in the late 70's to early 80's. It might get parity with that, some indicators are close, others aren't. I personally don't remember that recession, I was too young.

It seems to me like much of the criticism of the design choices Apple made regarding the battery are based on a perspective that is possibly in question - or at least evolving. We're all used to laptops that need spare batteries because batteries don't last long enough to give us the juice we need. It's standard practice for road warriors to carry a spare battery in their computer case for the long flight. From that perspective having no externally accessible battery compartment is really a bad idea.

But what if the perspective is this: replaceable batteries are a compromise. What we want is our computer to have power when we need it. We use replaceable batteries to accomplish this because it's all our technology will allow. But wouldn't it be better if there was a battery that contained enough power to meet 90% of users needs between charging locations? And when it comes to replacement - the same thing applies. Buying a new battery to replace a dying one is a compromise. Wouldn't it better if there was a battery that could be recharged enough to last for the life of the product, at least for 90% of users?

I think this is the kind of thinking going on at Apple. Now, the big question is this - will this technology actually meet the promise? I don't know. We may be seeing the "beta" of the idea. But whether it's this technology, or some other technology that has yet to appear, clearly this different perspective is superior.

Now, the truth of Apple's claims regarding the capacity and life of this battery have yet to be proven. But on the face of their claims, we're headed in the right direction. Most of us CAN provide a plug somewhere in the span of eight hours. And as far as life span goes - most of us replace our computers every 3-4 years. I know not everyone does. The international flight user will disagree with this philosophy, as will the person who keeps using the same computer for 5 or 6 or 7 years. But for most of us - this battery will never need to be removed or replaced.

Think of the next generation! With improvement we'll see an internal battery that has a 12-15 hour life, and can be recharged 1500 times. I am a very heavy computer user - and while I am only one person - I cannot think of a laptop I have owned in the last 10 years that I kept in service for longer than 3 years. In that same amount of time, I only have taken 3 flights long enough where I needed an additional power source. I know there are others that this is not true for. But for the vast majority of computer users that very realistically represents both the maximum span of time they would be away from a power source, and the length of the computer's life for their use.

It seems to me like much of the criticism of the design choices Apple made regarding the battery are based on a perspective that is possibly in question - or at least evolving. We're all used to laptops that need spare batteries because batteries don't last long enough to give us the juice we need. It's standard practice for road warriors to carry a spare battery in their computer case for the long flight. From that perspective having no externally accessible battery compartment is really a bad idea.

But what if the perspective is this: replaceable batteries are a compromise. What we want is our computer to have power when we need it. We use replaceable batteries to accomplish this because it's all our technology will allow. But wouldn't it be better if there was a battery that contained enough power to meet 90% of users needs between charging locations? And when it comes to replacement - the same thing applies. Buying a new battery to replace a dying one is a compromise. Wouldn't it better if there was a battery that could be recharged enough to last for the life of the product, at least for 90% of users?

I think this is the kind of thinking going on at Apple. Now, the big question is this - will this technology actually meet the promise? I don't know. We may be seeing the "beta" of the idea. But whether it's this technology, or some other technology that has yet to appear, clearly this different perspective is superior.

Now, the truth of Apple's claims regarding the capacity and life of this battery have yet to be proven. But on the face of their claims, we're headed in the right direction. Most of us CAN provide a plug somewhere in the span of eight hours. And as far as life span goes - most of us replace our computers every 3-4 years. I know not everyone does. The international flight user will disagree with this philosophy, as will the person who keeps using the same computer for 5 or 6 or 7 years. But for most of us - this battery will never need to be removed or replaced.

Think of the next generation! With improvement we'll see an internal battery that has a 12-15 hour life, and can be recharged 1500 times. I am a very heavy computer user - and while I am only one person - I cannot think of a laptop I have owned in the last 10 years that I kept in service for longer than 3 years. In that same amount of time, I only have taken 3 flights long enough where I needed an additional power source. I know there are others that this is not true for. But for the vast majority of computer users that very realistically represents both the maximum span of time they would be away from a power source, and the length of the computer's life for their use.

"This business plan will not work.
They are building fringe products for a boutique market, lacking the innovation to stand above the competition. This trend had better end with this latest failure."

Yeah, "Rain," Apple's really taking it in the shorts with their failed business plan. Q1/2009 was the biggest in the company's history--and in the throes of a worldwide downturn. Yep, that's failure all right. As for the drop in AAPL, show me one--just one--equity that hasn't fallen precipitously over the past year:

So, oh wise one from Canada, did you advise your "clients" to abandon ALL technology stocks last year? Did you see the coming cataclysm for ALL other equities as well? Are you a prophet as well as a troll?

You're a Dell/Win/FanBoy, sir, and a liar (most likely) as well. The only thing wrong with Apple's business model is the global economic environment in which it--and all other companies--have to exist today. And that shall pass, as will a whole host of other tech companies and their stocks. (Palm? Dell? Gateway?) Return to your box under the bridge, sir or madam, and keep trip-tropping along. You have absolutely no credence here.